Recent analysis suggests the outcome of the 2024 Presidential election was significantly influenced by voter suppression tactics employed across several battleground states. According to investigative journalist Greg Palast, if all legal voters had been allowed to cast their ballots and those votes properly counted, Vice President Kamala Harris would have emerged victorious with 286 electoral votes.
Palast's shocking conclusions are drawn from extensive research and data highlighting the myriad ways voters, particularly voters of color, were systematically disenfranchised. For example, data from the US Elections Assistance Commission indicates nearly 4.8 million voters were wrongfully purged from electoral rolls. By August of 2024, self-identified "vigilante" voter fraud hunters had challenged the rights of over 317,000 voters across various states, resulting in disproportionate impacts on communities of color.
The ramifications of these actions are staggering. Harris is estimated to have lost 3.5 million votes due to suppression tactics, such as the disqualification of over 2 million mail-in ballots due to minor clerical errors, and the rejection of 1.2 million provisional ballots. Palast argues these figures reflect more than just statistical anomalies; they point to an orchestrated effort to prevent specific demographics from voting.
Palast draws parallels to historical events, noting how these tactics echo the discriminatory practices of Jim Crow laws. According to his analysis, the impact of these suppressive measures is particularly pronounced. Research indicates Black voters were 400 percent more likely than white voters to have their mail-in ballots rejected. Such targeted discrimination raises important questions about the integrity of the electoral process and the validity of the results.
The 2024 election also followed the trend of tightened voting regulations, with at least 78 restrictive laws introduced across 30 states since the last presidential election. Georgia's SB 202 is noted as particularly notorious for its observably negative effects, prompting charges of suppression from numerous civil rights organizations. Those opposing these laws argue they blatantly discriminate against minority groups, limiting their access to voting and fortifying Republican strongholds.
Palast recounts specific cases, such as the efforts by Harris County, Texas, where access to mail-in voting was hampered amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision to reject mail-out ballots for safety reasons was framed as necessary but resulted more explicitly as part of strategic moves to maintain political advantage. Palast cites Ken Paxton, Texas' Attorney General, who stated the prevention of mail-out ballots was beneficial to Trump's campaign.
Evidently, the hostile environment for mail-in ballots propagated by the Republican Party contributed heavily to election outcomes. These efforts were complemented by the closure of polling stations, intimidation tactics, and other systematic barriers imposed, which undoubtedly skewed voter turnout.
On the day of the election, for example, bomb threats forced the closure of 31 polling locations across Atlanta, disproportionately impacting Black voters and those from marginalized communities.
Persistent voter suppression activities included the rise of self-appointed vigilantes challenging voter eligibility. This practice, reviving tactics reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan's attack on the franchise during the mid-20th century, heavily targeted voters of color, as evidenced by the high volume of challenges launched and the remarkable ineffectiveness of state responses to affirm voters' rights.
Looking forward, advocacy groups are mobilizing to combat these suppressive actions, similar to campaigns seen in prior electoral cycles. Civil rights organizations are working to re-register purged voters and challenge these laws through various legal avenues. For example, after previous elections, the systemic purges were halted by concerted legal actions against questionable practices, influenced by messages from prominent civil rights leaders.
The data amassed by Palast establishes substantial grounds for reconsidering the 2024 election's legitimacy. With over 5 million voters affected by various means of suppression, including the infamous "Poison Postcard" initiative targeting unresponsive voters for purging, the stakes entered new territory. Instead of improving access, these new methods served to enrich partisan power plays under the guise of election integrity.
Moving forward, vigilance becomes imperative. The push to prompt legislative reforms and erase fabricated barriers to voting continues as fundamental for preserving democratic integrity. Modern activists must remain informed, and prepared to act as custodians of voter rights, especially as the repercussions from the 2024 election reveal the necessity of such vigilance.
Palast firmly concludes, unable to ignore the extent of suppression nor the preponderance of evidence supporting his claims, asserting, "Kamala Harris should have won." Understanding the interplay between voter suppression tactics and electoral results is now more urgent than ever as America grapples with its democratic obligations.